I should look into the customizations of Glocks.
It just occurred to me, since they are plastic, they are easy to butcher with a soldering iron, dremel, or even a sharp stick.
This is the perfect platform and results in fantastic pieces of work.

I like it. That thing is perfect for beach patrol in NE Florida. We have a lot of coquina mixed in with our sand, and that thing would blend right in.

I like the M&P........
I think the new M&P slogan should be, "The Smith&Wesson M&P, better than a Glock!!".

I'm not quite there yet. But I do have my first M&P and the initial impressions are very good. The Glock trigger actually feels better to me. But that's about it.

Then again I'm a pretty broad minded guy. I like Beretta, Colt, Sig, Glock, H&K, S&W, the XD guns, FN, etc. Once you get into the guns that have a pretty proven reputation, it really comes down to preferences. Bore axis really seems to be one of teh biggest determining factors for me. My Sig that I love has a high bore axis and it is what keeps it out of my top slot. The 1911, the Glocks, Beretta 92 and the M&P all have a nice low bore axis, that i find contributes to how enjoyable they are to shoot for extended periods. The XD, The Sig, the H&K and the FN are all a bit on the tall side. Good guns, but they just don't feel as good to shoot to me. I wouldn't make fun of anyone for picking one of the above over any of the others. To me that is where the personal side of the choices are made for whatever reason. If it fits, if it works, and you like it, then it should serve you well.

Extraneous external controls make manual of arms more complicated than necessary

Close tolerances of moving parts, while pleasing to the eye and good for accuracy, make maintenance, especially proper lubrication, more important for reliable function than it should be

Low magazine capacity for its size and weight

A properly built 1911 will cost more than a properly built polymer frame pistol, if for no other reason than machining steel forgings and hand fitting parts is a more expensive process today due to labor and machine time costs

1911 final thoughts:

A properly built 1911 is a superb weapon, but it requires more maintenance and attention to detail in manufacturing than is common for weapons fabrication and use in the information age. Granted, that's more a human issue than an issue with the design, but humans are involved and that fact can't be ignored.

As with all spring operated devices, the quality of the springs is somewhat perplexing, given our advancements in metallurgy and understanding of fatigue life.

There are two things that kill 1911's, improperly fitted or poorly machined parts and poor quality springs. The first problem is time consuming and expensive to fix, but the second is rather easy. It's perplexing that the pistols don't come from the factory with flat wire chrome silicon springs.

Glock Pros:

Functions just like a revolver, apart from obvious differences between the two designs, and has no external controls that the user has to learn to manipulate apart from the magazine release and slide lock

High magazine capacity for its size and weight

Low cost, in terms of materials and man hours, for a reliable, combat accurate result

Glock Cons

Ergonomics are not especially good for the average human hand

The trigger mechanism functions just like a revolver, meaning it's long, a little heavy, and unlike a revolver doesn't have quite as pronounced a reset

Parts are not especially well fitted together and, in some cases, the company incorrectly thought that parts from previous iterations of their design would work in newer iterations of their design

Glock final thoughts:

For what was supposed to be a low cost, low quality, mass produced weapon made as quickly and cheaply as possible, the result is quite good. The ergonomics problems are largely manufactured by Glock with the stupid finger groove and fat frame design. The "Gen 4" models of the Glock fix the fat frame problem, but the finger grooves are still there.

No Picatinny rail? Seriously?

Just like a 1911, a Glock would benefit from better quality springs.

Apart from the problems previously listed, the Glock only has one real problem. The human stupidity of thinking that you can simply slap parts together from different designs, and without proper testing, to produce a functional combat weapon is just bizarre.

Final thoughts on the subject:

The 1911 is an older, heavier, lower capacity design that requires more maintenance and is more expensive to produce. Properly built and maintained, it gets the job done. However, humans are involved. What could possibly go wrong?

The Glock is a lightweight, higher capacity design that requires less maintenance and is less expensive to produce. Properly built and maintained, it gets the job done. However, humans are involved. What could possibly go wrong?